Severn Bridge: Tolls

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As I have said previously from this Dispatch Box, the lessons of history I gain from the noble Lord are always welcome. I put that down to the pages of history, as well.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the economic impact of the tolls is felt not just in Wales but in the Forest of Dean. I think the Minister said that there has not been an economic impact study. Will he consider doing one, because the tolls have a huge impact on the people of the Forest of Dean?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Baroness raises a valid point about the people of the Forest of Dean—and, indeed, further afield in Gloucestershire. There have been some calls for a third crossing. That is a case to consider at local level, and I am sure the local LEP will put forward a case. On the economic impact study, once we have reached the end of this concessionary period, we will consider the Welsh Government report and that will inform the final decision on how these crossings are managed in future.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I will say two things before I address the issues. First, my eyes are on the totality of the Bill. It is a fantastic Bill, and I warmly thank and congratulate the Minister on all the steps that have been taken throughout the process of the deliberations on it. The fact that I support these amendments does not detract from that in any way; I merely wish to make a terrific Bill even better.

Secondly, it is being said in the corridors that we are putting the Bill in danger with this amendment—much was made of that in the Commons. I have heard it said that civil servants have been saying that to some of your Lordships. I would not support an amendment if I thought that it was putting the Bill in danger. It is not doing so. There is ample time for us to discuss the amendment and for it to go back to the Commons, were it to be passed. What we are doing now feels like an anomaly only because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which means that we have had a sort of protracted wash-up, and we are no longer used to the ping-pongs we used to have.

The substance of the amendment seeks to defend the important win that Members from around this House secured earlier this month. As we know, many overseas domestic workers are subject to appalling working conditions, long hours and little pay, and are sometimes at risk of mental, physical and sexual abuse. They must be entitled to the most basic rights to enable them to leave their abusive employer when they feel the need to, and they should know, as a matter of precaution, that a system is in place to protect them. That is the most crucial piece of the jigsaw, which is currently missing from the Government’s amendment. Without that, there is no bargaining power between an employee and an employer.

The workers must be able to challenge maltreatment and abuse, and be able to leave and change their employer without having to take a leap of faith. To make co-operation with the authorities a condition on securing leave to remain would only drive more domestic workers underground and lock them into a cycle of abuse. What incentive would they have in coming forward? Would the authorities believe them? What if the NRM decision was not positive? The NRM does not provide them with any access to legal aid or right of appeal. Even if they got a conclusive grounds decision, who would employ them for the mere six months they would be able to remain in this country?

In the three years during which migrant domestic workers have been tied to their employers, fewer have gone to the authorities. Understandably, they are reluctant to do so because they are afraid of people in authority. Of the 214 people who Kalayaan internally identified as trafficked since April 2012, only 63 have consented to a referral to the NRM. Therefore, can we rely on the NRM to deliver accurate decisions on the fate of these workers, when only a few months ago the independent review into the effectiveness of the NRM highlighted significant areas for improvement? I have no doubt that as a consequence of the review and the Bill there will be real changes in the NRM, and I welcome that. However, change takes time, during which overseas domestic workers will continue to suffer abuse. Moreover, as Kalayaan pointed out in its briefing, if forcing domestic workers into the NRM is a way of prosecuting employers, why have none been prosecuted during the three years of the tied visa? If we put ourselves in the shoes of such a worker, would we risk our livelihood on an uncertain decision or prefer to stay abused and exploited for the sake of our family, who are dependent on us in our home country? Could the Minister compare the system for spouse visas and overseas domestic workers visas? The Government provide a route for settlement to those who suffer domestic violence while in the UK on a spouse visa in the hope that this will be an incentive to people to leave the abusive relationship, not to stay in it because of fears about their immigration status. So why do the Government seek to create a system in which ODWs are treated differently?

Statistics from Kalayaan, which has done such a fine job in campaigning on this issue, show that in 1998, when the right to change employer was introduced, the numbers of those abused went down. Similarly, in 2012, when the restrictions on freedoms were put in and the right to change employer was removed, the numbers went up. This is not a coincidence. All the evidence that we have from NGOs and from the media coverage has shown that there is a link between tied visas and abuse of overseas domestic workers. Surely we can best facilitate the end of suffering on abuse for overseas domestic workers by listening to them, the charities that work with them and the independent expert groups that have looked at the issue. All of them are unanimous that to help to prevent the abuse happening in the first place, the overseas domestic worker visa must be untied.

I very much hope that this excellent listening and responsive Minister will, having answered the points made today, accept the amendments. In doing so, he will have made a very good Bill even better. More importantly, he will have helped and protected these most vulnerable of workers.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

I add in support of what my noble friend has said that it would be useful if the Minister could elucidate what sort of contract of employment we are normally talking about, because that would subsume many of the worries about the lack of rights that we are discussing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I do not want to get this wrong. I probably need to look to my left for some inspiration, which I have relied on heavily during the passage of the Bill, because this is at such a critical stage. It is pointless to say, as I normally do, that I will write to the noble Baroness. It is a very reasonable question and we should have an answer to it.

On employment tribunals, overseas domestic workers have the same rights of access to employment tribunal services as other workers where the tribunal has jurisdiction. They are able to file a claim and nominate a representative to appear on their behalf. Additionally, it may be possible to provide evidence via a videolink.

Of course, the answer to the noble Baroness’s question is really so obvious I wonder why she needed to ask it. [Laughter] It will come in in October. That is the current plan and the current schedule. But as I have also said, it is for the next Government to introduce this when they wish. There is nothing to stop them bringing it forward once they have James Ewins’ review.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, talked about the notification requirement. This is about notifying the authorities when they are going to change employer. This was something that Kalayaan highlighted in its report, Ending the Abuse, which was produced some time ago, in May 2011. I pay tribute to Kalayaan’s consistent work on this topic. The report says, on the right to change employers:

“Home Office data for the period from January 2003 to August 2010 shows that … 41 per cent … of migrant domestic workers cited abuse/exploitation as the reason for changing employer. Given that many MDWs prefer not to reveal their personal experiences to the Home Office, the figures are likely to be much higher in reality”.

That is still an issue with regard to the wording of Amendment 72D.

There have been a number of remarks and I probably cannot do justice to them all. I take seriously the intent behind the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to say that there is usually a Parliament to press. I am trying to remember all that he said, but he said at the end that it is important to recognise the moment. In a sense, I am saying that, although perhaps not for the straightforward reasons that we have brought forward here, the Government have made significant steps. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, acknowledged that. We have moved significantly down the route of making sure that, before people come here, they are aware of their rights and the protections that exist; that employers are aware of the consequences of abuse; that people who come here have knowledge of the minimum wage and other elements that they are entitled to; and that, when people arrive at port, there are interviews with Border Force officials. The Government have moved. They have not simply said no to the amendment but have launched a review; in essence, we are unsure whether we have gone far enough and whether this is the right route.

We have highlighted the particular problems with the amendment. As a number of people have pointed out—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby—there are problems and weaknesses with this amendment. Being the generous man that he is, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will probably recognise some of those deficiencies.

The question is whether the House wants to insist upon this amendment and send a Bill that incorporates it back to the other place. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, said that there is ample time, and I suppose that there is always time—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

There is ample time.

[Lord Bates]

“Ample” is an interesting word when we are on the eve of the Dissolution of Parliament. However, there is of course time to do this—that is not the argument. The argument that we and others have put forward is whether this is the amendment that we want. As worded, it will simply mean that lots of people who are already here in the country and are victims of abuse will not be eligible to be covered by its provisions, whereas our amendment is retrospective and covers people who are already here.

The amendment is also defective in that there is a suite of measures, which people in this House have fought long and hard to include in and make available to this victim-focused legislation, available through the national referral mechanism. It is critical that victims get that level of medical and financial support, which is available through the NRM; that is what it is there for and why it has been reviewed and reformed as part of the work that we have done here. Most crucially, the amendment is defective because a serious and considered piece of work is currently going through its process under the widely respected James Ewins. Our argument is that that should be allowed to take its course.

I hope that people attach some weight to what I am about to say. Those who are responsible for this—Shaun Sawyer is leading the charge for us at the national policing level and making sure that those who are guilty are prosecuted—warn that the amendment as worded has the real, inherent danger of, in the words of the right reverend Prelate, not separating the victim from the crime. That is a potential danger. We want to make sure that the victim is protected but we also want to make sure that the perpetrator of the crime does not then continue to abuse other employees who are there.

I sense that the House is filling up and has probably reached a point where it wants to reach a judgment on this. I sense that and accept it, but I would not want the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, or other noble Lords who might be considering their action, to think, first, that the Government have not wrestled with the issue and tried to find a way forward which works for victims. I would not want noble Lords to feel that this is a one-off chance: that if they miss this moment, they will never get the opportunity to act again. We can act again at any time—Immigration Rules can be changed at any time if they are laid before Parliament—and the report will come forward.

There is another reason—I shall finish on this. This is in no way to suggest that we ought to fit in with this timescale, but today is the UN-sponsored International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade. In my view, it is a highly appropriate day to ensure that this momentous piece of legislation, which has been shaped, reformed and improved so much by all parts of your Lordships’ House, goes for Royal Assent and lands on the statute book, to give protection to the victims who need it and to ensure that the perpetrators can practise their crime no more in this country.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, one of the most important aims of the Bill is undoubtedly to better protect children from the scourge of slavery and trafficking. I have welcomed from the outset the enabling provision for specific child trafficking advocates but have also joined other noble Lords in pushing for such advocates to be given greater clout and full independence in working to protect the children they are assigned to. To that end, I am heartened by the Government’s proposed amendments which seek to do this.

At Second Reading I was also clear about the need to assign full and proper legal powers to advocates. Again, I welcome that the power to appoint and instruct legal representation on behalf of the child is now being proposed by the Government in Amendment 61.

I would, however, emphasise the importance of the constructive working relationships between the advocates and other professionals working with the child. It is important that this should be a fundamental part of their roles. I am still a little concerned that there is not enough clarification on the definition of their responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this when he responds.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the government amendments and Amendment 60, which stands in my name and that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. At the outset, I, too, pay tribute to the battles, as the noble and learned Baroness put it, fought by her and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to bring about child trafficking advocates with the appropriate powers. I have always been pleased to support their powerful advocacy.

As noble Lords have said, we are grateful for the Minister’s efforts in securing these important amendments, which significantly strengthen the role of child advocates in the Bill. In Committee, we pushed for changes to be made to Clause 48, and specifically to give advocates the legal powers that they would require in order to carry out their role effectively. This is the purpose of Amendment 60—but, of course, I am delighted to see that the same powers are outlined in government Amendment 61. Alongside the legal powers, we are pleased that government Amendment 72 gives child trafficking advocates the ability to co-operate and work for public authorities. These are important steps in securing the protection of vulnerable children who have been, and are, the victims of the most heinous crimes.

Guardians will be able to effectively and successfully act in a child’s interests only if they have the appropriate powers to instruct solicitors and have access to the required information from public authorities. Evidence from members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium, the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council demonstrates that local authorities have, unfortunately, failed on many occasions to respond adequately to the needs of the trafficked child.

While I give the Minister the warmest thanks for the amendments that he has brought forward today, I am rather disappointed that between Committee and Report we were not given sufficient information on the interim outcomes of the pilots that are being undertaken. I am grateful for the letter sent out by the Minister on Monday evening, but there is not quite enough detail to tell us clearly what needs to be improved, what is working in the current trials and what is not. The trials started in September 2014 and it would have been helpful if, five months on, we could have had more details and information to inform our debate today. So I have a few questions for the noble Lord.

It would be helpful if he could tell us how many children each advocate represents at a time, what services are available to help with any potential language barriers the children may have, and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said—what the difference is between the role of the advocate and that of the social worker. Do the trials demonstrate that there is a clear enough definition between those two very specific roles? Have any areas been identified thus far where more work needs to be done or where there are potential problems? I wonder, for example, why there has been a slower rate of uptake than may have been expected.

With that, I say again that I am very grateful to the Minister for all that he has done on these issues, and I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, while welcoming very much the enormous progress that has been made—I have no doubt that a lot of that is due to the Minister’s personal efforts—I have two points that I should like to raise. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was going to ask about independent reviewing officers, but I suppose that that is subsumed within the question of accountability.

My first point, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, concerns the use of the term “reasonable grounds to believe” which the government amendments apply in place of “reason to believe”. On Monday when we discussed legal aid, the Minister said that he thought it was important that no one should be deterred from applying to be referred to the national referral mechanism, and therefore that it would be better to have “reasonable grounds to believe” as the catalyst or prompt for various things to follow. It would be ironic if that were to be a reason for the change today in the case of child trafficking advocates.

I wonder whether there is in fact any difference between the terms. Is one more subjective than the other, or is one a harder test than the other? I ask this because if they mean the same, would it not be better to retain a non-technical term in order to anticipate any change there may be in the arrangements for the national referral mechanism? We know that consideration is being given to having a single stage going straight to conclusive grounds. Are we constraining a change which a lot of NGOs are calling for by including a technical term in the legislation? This is a question that goes to quite a number of the amendments that we will be considering today.

My second point is about legal representation. I think that on pretty much every occasion when we have discussed this issue I have argued for its importance. I did wonder whether the instruction should be given by the child or by the advocate. Is it the advocate’s role to assist, which is the Government’s amendment? I think that perhaps it is. The lawyer needs to hear from the child, but I am not even sure whether a child—I hesitate to ask this question in the presence of the noble and learned Baroness—has the capacity to give instructions to a legal representative. Should they instead be given by someone on the child’s behalf? However, that is not the main thrust of my question.

Government Amendment 61 states:

“The advocate may (where appropriate) assist the child to obtain legal or other advice”,

and so on. Can the Minister flesh that out? If a lawyer is approached and asked for advice, but legal advice is not appropriate in the circumstances, the lawyer is going to say so. We do not need legislation to put a block in the way—and, indeed, there should not be a block in the way of that approach.

I would not want to think that the advocate would be in a position to stop the question to a lawyer: “Is this a legal issue that you can help sort out?”. I would not want to think that the term “appropriate” in this context is because it is appropriate to the trafficked position of the child—because a child victim may have much wider needs than those which are directly related to his or her having been trafficked. Again, I think it would be a great pity if those who are involved are made to question whether seeking legal advice is the right thing to do.

If the Minister can flesh out and get rid of my concerns about Amendment 61, it would be very helpful to have that on the record. If he cannot, I will really wish that I had not raised them, because I would not want the negative points to be on the record, either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I support Amendment 90, which would end the unacceptable situation regarding the current visa system for overseas domestic workers. In Committee we heard many passionate speeches. Since then, the Minister has announced a review and a package of other changes that the Government will be bringing forward to ameliorate the situation. As helpful as these may be, they do not tackle head-on the current desperate plight of many domestic workers who are subject to exploitation, slavery and forced labour.

The Government have had nearly a year since the pre-legislative scrutiny committee published its report in April 2014 to look into this and review the visa system for ODWs. So I have to ask why they have left it so late to commission a review. I have no doubt that James Ewins, who will undertake the review, will do a splendid job: he is superbly qualified. However, the review is both too late and, I believe, unnecessary. Time and again we have been told by the Government that there is insufficient evidence and that the numbers do not show that the 2012 visa changes have had any effect on the abuse that some overseas domestic workers have had to endure. I beg to differ. Indeed, I have had no contact with any organisation or any individual who shares the Government’s view. Kalayaan, which has been leading the way in advocating and representing these workers, has first-hand experience and the case studies of numerous workers whom it has helped to escape. Human Rights Watch has carried out an independent review which took over a year to complete. One therefore has to wonder how the Government’s review can be completed by the end of July this year. As the noble Lord himself said, by that time this piece of legislation, excellent though it is, will be done and dusted.

The Joint Committee on the draft Bill said that since the tied visa was introduced there have been high levels of abuse among migrant domestic workers entering the UK. They said that the current bondage arrangement has,

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery”.

The committee, together with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and numerous NGOs, has called on the UK Government to reverse the relevant changes to the Immigration Rules and to reinstate the pre-2012 protections in the Bill. They all base their views on evidence. How much more evidence do we need? How many more cases do we need to uncover to reach the threshold where a change will happen? Clearly, getting more evidence will be particularly hard if workers are imprisoned and then driven underground.

In his letter of 9 February, the Minister outlined some actions that the Government have committed to taking immediately. Some of these are welcome but, frankly, they are woefully inadequate and do not remedy the root of the problem—that is, untying the visas. The pilot visa interview programme in Africa might sound superficially attractive, but realistically these overseas domestic workers are not going to admit that their employer does not treat them well. Indeed, they might not even be aware of the real horrors that await them until they start work in this country. Their employer is hardly going to tell them beforehand that they are going to work 19 hours a day, sleep on a floor, have little food, no pay and no access to their passport. In any case, workers are already meant to be interviewed separately from their employers, so this is not a new measure. Likewise, an employer is hardly going to provide a contract giving the truthful details. Indeed, contracts are required currently, yet Kalayaan frequently finds cases where domestic workers’ terms and conditions of employment, including salary, are not in accordance with their contract. To be effective, contracts of employment must be easily enforceable in the UK; but as the noble Lord himself has said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said so forcefully in Committee, this is way out of the bounds of reality.

I welcome the reintegration plan with the FCO which will support overseas domestic workers who wish to return to their home country and rebuild their lives, but it does not help those who are currently enslaved. In the case of domestic workers employed by diplomats, diplomatic immunity makes it particularly hard for them to access justice. Earlier this month the Court of Appeal found that diplomatic immunity trumped trafficking when it refused the claim of two domestic workers found by the UK’s national referral mechanism to have been conclusively trafficked by their diplomatic employers.

We are now on the last day of Report on this landmark Bill. In this amendment we are not talking about huge numbers of people; we are talking about a few miserable, poor, abused people—usually women—who often have dependants relying on their support, who have been lured to employment here by ruthless and exploitative employers. These workers need a change in the law, and Peers today have an opportunity to make that a reality. As Kalayaan said in one of its excellent briefings, we need to protect, not to review. Today we have an opportunity to do that by passing this amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Carlisle]

My Lords, several of the amendments to this important Bill have been introduced as filling a gap in the legislation. That is especially true of Amendment 90. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, have said, it will assist all private and diplomatic domestic workers by providing a measure of protection and flexibility otherwise lacking in the Bill. It will also enable those who have been victims of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period while seeking alternative employment. That is why I am glad to have my name attached to the amendment.

On Monday my noble friend Lord Judd, when speaking about the global dimension of modern slavery, referred to a crisis of values suggested by the recent bishops’ pastoral letter entitled Who is My Neighbour? In this amendment we have one interesting example of a relatively small number of people who are our neighbours—namely, overseas domestic workers—as well as one means of taking a principled and value-based stand by offering them this modest help. The humane and sensible rationale for this amendment has already been so well argued that I have no need to detain your Lordships further, except to say that I am happy to be associated with it and to offer it my enthusiastic support.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support on my Amendment 7. I raised this issue in Committee, but since then I have made a little refinement to this proposed new clause to make it clearer. I thank Klara Skrivankova again for her help in talking me through the importance of this provision. I should declare an interest as a trustee of the charity Aid by Trade, which supports the Cotton made in Africa project—the House will perhaps see the relevance of that later on—and as a patron of Anti-Slavery International.

I do not want to take up too much time because, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I agree that we want to push on with the Bill and make sure that we get it into the best possible shape that we can in the limited time that we have. However, it is worth while just going through some of the background to this amendment. The amendment tries to draw attention to the fact that those who benefit financially from forced labour, which is now recognised to be something like a $150 billion-trade, are not only those who are directly involved in the exploitation of their victims. It goes wider than that. The individuals and companies that choose to disregard information about slavery in their supply chains so as to ensure continued revenue maximisation are also culpable.

The business model behind forced labour demonstrates that the two main reasons for using it, and for implicitly accepting exploitative practices in the supply chain, are of course cost reduction and revenue generation. The total cost of someone who is working in a coercive situation for an exploitative employer is clearly less than it would be if the arrangement were lawful. In a very competitive environment where there is constant pressure to cut costs, many agents promise to provide workers for an extremely low outlay. While the Bill provides for significant penalties for those who enslave or traffic others, it currently omits liability for those who benefit from the enslavement of others through the acts of third parties. This allows those who choose to do so to ignore a situation where there is exploitation and to escape justice, even though they derive profit from such unlawful activities.

The issue of liability for benefiting from modern slavery is addressed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already mentioned, in the EU trafficking directive to which we are a party. I reiterate the question which the noble Baroness asked of the Minister: to explain why it seems that we are a little behind in endorsing that in an active way.

The directive requires member states to establish liability for benefiting from the exploitation of others committed by a third party and to make provision for criminal and non-criminal sanctions for those who benefit in this way. There is a similar provision in the United States under Code 1589, which makes it an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to 20 years to knowingly benefit financially or receive anything of value from forced labour or services.

When I raised the earlier version of this amendment in Committee, I shared the example of a Belgian motorway restaurant company that was held liable for the exploitation of the workers who were cleaning the toilets at its premises. Those cleaners were actually employed by a subcontractor, not directly by the restaurant company, but essentially that company was brought to justice for its role in ignoring the very clear evidence that this form of exploitation was taking place on its premises in its business.

I am concerned, though, that there are British businesses that benefit from forced labour. A number of noble Lords will be aware of the situation in Uzbekistan with regard to cotton harvesting, but unfortunately it looks as if a couple of British companies are continuing to trade in cotton from Uzbekistan, despite the fact that it is well known that the authorities there use forced labour from their own citizens to pick cotton, most of which is destined for international export. Children and adults are forced to pick cotton under threat of punishment or incarceration, and the only way out is to try to find the money to pay someone else to do that job for you. We know—there is masses of evidence—that trading in cotton from Uzbekistan means trading in a commodity that is effectively produced entirely by slave labour. If you are trading with Uzbekistan, you are profiting from that slave labour, and under the amendment you would be liable to be brought to justice for doing so. I understand that two UK companies currently buy and trade in cotton from Uzbekistan despite their knowledge of what is going on there.

If we are serious about stamping out enslavement and forced labour, particularly that involving children and young people, we have to make it unprofitable, and that is what this amendment seeks to do. It would also address instances where a person is exploited in domestic servitude in a private household and is lent to friends or relatives as free help in the knowledge that this worker has been treated like a slave by the employer. It would cover landlords who know that their property is being used to harbour those in a situation of slavery but who choose to ignore it because of the revenue from renting out the property. Clearly no one in the UK should be profiting from enslavement—that is the driving force behind the Bill—so I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to this in the same manner as he has to all the previous arguments and debates on the Bill. Obviously we all want to achieve the same result, but we want to make it as hostile as possible for people to benefit from trafficking and enslavement, even if indirectly.

The obvious villains are the traffickers and enslavers—they are the big baddies who we can obviously go after—but, as I have tried to outline here, there are a number of companies and organisations, not just in Britain but around the world, which are profiting from that in a knowing way, and that is wrong. As I said, we have an obligation under EU law to do something about this, so perhaps the Minister can explain to us why the Government seem to be slightly reluctant to put the principles underlying the amendment in the Bill and to reinforce its message on forced labour and trafficking.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

Bizarrely, my Lords, I support government Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates; it has not yet been moved but I am sure that he will wish to respond to the debate as a whole. I am grateful to the Minister for the huge amount of work that he has done behind the scenes in Committee and on Report, bringing forward a number of changes to the Bill, including on offences. I do not think that the amendment goes far enough, as will be clear when I speak in the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey; we would have liked to have seen clearer and better defined offences, as was recommended by the draft Bill committee. However, we recognise that the government amendment before us today is a step in the right direction in bringing to justice those who have exploited others—adults or children—so we welcome it as far as it goes.

In a letter to me, the Minister spoke of the very good way in which the collaborative nature of this Bill has worked. It vindicates the enthusiasm that we all have for pre-legislative scrutiny, which not only improves a draft Bill but enables all those concerned to be properly engaged and makes the legislative process a lot better, so I look forward to more of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment would introduce a separate offence of child exploitation. I acknowledge that the amendment that the Government have just moved goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed in Committee by noble Lords across the Chamber and by the large number of voluntary organisations that work with exploited children. I very much welcome the government amendment as a major step forward; however, I still have two key concerns that I ask the Minister to address.

First, the Bill is not clear enough on the issue of children who are exploited but where the child is not forced to commit a crime. I know that the Government are seeking to ensure that the offence of,

“Slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour”,

in Clause 1 reflects the fact that children can be influenced in subtle ways. However, for Clause 1 to have the same effect as a separate child exploitation offence, the Government need to make explicit their intention that it shall be an offence, even if there is no evidence of force. The Minister, in his letter of 16 February to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said that the Bill makes clear that:

“Where a person deliberately targets a vulnerable person, such as a child, there is no requirement for any force, threats or deception to be used to induce the child into being exploited”.

If the Government were willing to include this wording in guidance, that would go a long way to meeting my concerns in this area. Children who are groomed into criminality or begging often become very attached to their exploiters, identifying with them so closely that they do not understand that they are being exploited. This presents a problem for prosecutors when deciding whether a case has a realistic prospect of a conviction. Because of this uncertainty, many of these cases never get to court. Perhaps the Minister will deal with this point when he responds.

My second area of concern is to ensure that the definition of “exploitation” is crystal clear to everyone. Criminality is ever-changing, as are the ways people find to abuse and exploit the vulnerable. Children are being specifically targeted for use as domestic slaves, to guard cannabis factories, for harbouring guns, for serial theft and increasingly for use as drug mules. However, the evidence available to police in these cases often does not reach the threshold required to prove slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. That is why it is so important to ensure certainty over what constitutes exploitation, so that people who exploit children can and will be brought to justice.

I was interested to hear the list that the Minister read out of all the really important people who do not think a child exploitation clause is necessary, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions and the national policing lead. However, the myriad offences that the Government and these people say can currently be used to prosecute child exploitation are simply not being used. This is reflected in the pitifully low number of convictions. Charities and other organisations working in this area on a daily basis are encountering cases of exploited children slipping through the net time after time. In the past two years, the police have identified more than 1,000 child victims of human trafficking, but the Government have been unable to indicate a single prosecution of forced labour involving a child victim. In total, there were just 41 prosecutions for human trafficking offences last year.

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the national policing lead will now work together to raise awareness on how to prosecute child exploitation, but I hope that there will also be appropriate recognition by police and crime commissioners to prioritise child exploitation and to provide training for front-line police officers. This training must make use of face-to-face lectures by recognised experts in this field. Too often, so-called training involves nothing more than giving police officers a CD and asking them to sit in front of a computer screen and listen to it when they get time.

I shall keep a very close eye on how this new legislation is implemented. If expectations are not fulfilled, there will be clear demands to reopen the legislation all over again to enable more effective prosecutions, because we must protect the most vulnerable in our society: our children. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, in her Amendment 5. As I mentioned in the last grouping, while I welcome government Amendment 4, in my view it does not go far enough. It is evident that something is missing in the current legislative framework that is preventing criminals who exploit people of whatever age being brought to justice—but especially with regard to children.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Nationally, according to Crown Prosecution Service data, there have been no cases of a prosecution where a victim was a child since the introduction of Section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act on slavery, servitude and forced labour. Yet, of the 59 defendants charged with human trafficking offences in 2013-14, there was only one case that was not sexual exploitation in cases relating to child victims. Clearly, the numbers are not adding up.

Although we were grateful for the views of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, the national policing lead for modern slavery, Chief Constable Shaun Sawyer, and the director of the Organised Crime Command at the National Crime Agency, Ian Cruxton, in the letter that we received last week, we still feel that there is a legal difference of opinion on this issue which has not been resolved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who was until recently the Lord Chief Justice and the most senior criminal judge in the country, said of the Bill:

“We are making provisions for slavery, servitude and compulsory labour in clause 1 of the Bill. In clause 2, trafficking is the offence. It becomes an offence because you do it with a view to exploitation … You could have an offence of trafficking, full stop, and a separate offence of exploitation”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to put some additional words on the record on this point while I await further inspiration on the specific issue of guidance, if that is a hint to those behind me.

I am happy to reassure my noble friend that there is no requirement in a Clause 1 offence to prove physical force, threats or deception, including where the victim is a child. Of course, where there is evidence of, for example, physical force having been used against a victim, it would be helpful evidence for the prosecution to use, but it is not needed to prove the offence of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. The Government have changed Clause 1 several times to ensure that the specific circumstances of vulnerable victims, including child victims, are fully considered. We have already made it clear that the consent of the victims does not prevent a conviction and that all forms of vulnerability can be taken into consideration by the court.

The guidance would be for the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue. We have said that the DPP and the Crown Prosecution Service will work together to ensure that there is a more effective—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the Minister was crystal clear in his letter to me, for which I am very grateful. While I realise that it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue the guidance, as the noble Lord said, it would be extremely helpful if he could tell the DPP that it is the will of Parliament that those words be included in guidance. I am sure that she will then take that into appropriate consideration.

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to give that undertaking. It should be something of which the DPP is aware. She would be particularly aware of it because the level of consultation and soul-searching that we have had on this issue in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office—it has sometimes been hidden from the debate—has been unprecedented in comparison with any of the other proposed amendments to the Bill that I have considered. However, I am very happy to report that back.

It should also be borne in mind that it is the principal responsibility of the chief constables and police and crime commissioners to take this matter, and the will of the House, forward to ensure the prosecution of those who are guilty of child exploitation, and to bring those prosecutions forward successfully so that the victims can be protected. The prosecutions should serve as an example to stop this heinous activity in the future. I hope that that further inspiration might be helpful to my noble friend.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the response from the Home Secretary. The Minister will know how serious this inquiry is and how much it means to those who endured awful abuse in childhood, who were not listened to then and who deserve to be listened to and to have the chance for justice now. For the inquiry to stall once is unfortunate but twice is careless and the situation now frankly looks incompetent.

I wonder what is going on. Given the seriousness of this matter, I fear that there is now no choice but to start this inquiry again—properly, with a new chair, full powers and proper consideration of the scope and purpose involving survivors themselves. Other people have set up effective inquiries—for example, Hillsborough, the Northern Ireland inquiry into chid abuse and the Soham inquiry. When will the Home Secretary act decisively?

[Lord Bates]

We share the general consent to get at the truth of what has been happening and to get on with the work. I have explained some of the reasons for the delays. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness was very much one of the options set out by the Home Secretary in her letter of 17 December 2014 to panel members. The three options were a royal commission, giving statutory powers to the existing independent panel or starting all over again with a new chairman. Those remain the three options being actively considered.

We also very much share the view about the success of the Hillsborough inquiry in gaining truth. In fact, the model of that inquiry was the original model used to set up the independent panel. However, it proved not to be possible to command the confidence of the survivors’ groups in the structure as it was then. That is why we sought to open it up to a much wider range of people—150 people have applied or have been nominated to be considered—to go through the matter very carefully and, crucially, to keep survivors’ groups informed all the way through. We will continue to do that.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

It would enable them to extend their visas. It is the extension of the visa that would mean that they could be here longer and therefore possibly open to abuse for longer.

One other thing worth saying is that, of those who sought to extend visas before, there was a whole range of reasons as to why they wanted to do so. The fact that they were victims of trafficking or abuse was not necessarily the only or the main reason why people chose to change employers and to extend their visas. Of course, we recognise that there are huge risks to people who come here. In the Bill we seek to provide methods of having a more secure life for the people who come into our country and who are here because of the employment they have with a particular employer.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me, but I am boiling over sitting on the end of the Bench here. I am sorry that I did not speak to this amendment; it was for my noble friend to do so and he did so very well. Throughout the debate on the Bill, all noble Lords around the Chamber have been at one with the Government in trying to make it a better Bill and in trying to ensure that the lives of people who are suffering in servitude, slavery and bonded labour are made better. We know that that is what the Government want to do. We are talking about a very few people who are in a desperate situation. It is not due to the noble Baroness the Leader, and I do not often blame civil servants, but I cannot believe the guff that the Minister has had to read out. We are talking about people who are unable to make telephone calls or act on all the information that is given to them. These people are in desperation. We need to help them. Frankly, what the noble Baroness is saying is just not good enough.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

If I may say so, I am not aware that the noble Baroness’s Government produced answers to this either. It is not a straightforward issue. We have been trying to take measures that will further create supportive situations for people who find themselves trafficked. As I have said, if they do find themselves trafficked they will be taken up, be given support and be given legal aid. I absolutely accept the difficulty of people in these situations to get access outside of their house and to escape an abusive employer. However, the measures we are putting in place are part of an effort to try to identify where things have gone wrong and where there are people living in abusive situations in our country.

I will touch on those in diplomatic houses. Very often the servants of diplomats come under a different area of protection from other workers. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office treats very seriously any mistreatment of domestic workers in diplomatic households. Of course, that requires immense sensitivity in dealing with people whose customs and norms are different. However, it now has set in place very strong systems so that diplomats can be withdrawn from this country if it is discovered that they do not conform to the standards of employment that we expect from them and from everybody in this country. I entirely share the anger of the Committee about people who come to this country and are exploited and victimised while here. We are seeking different ways; we are open to suggestions from all sides of the Committee as to what other measures we might—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

My Lords, I have Amendment 97A in this group, but I also support Amendment 97 in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and Amendment 101A in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Many people welcome the great job done by the GLA. In the sectors for which it is responsible, it has been extremely effective at raising standards and driving out poor performance. Ten years ago, given the context in which the GLA was established, limiting the sectors it covered made sense. But 10 years later the limit on the GLA remit now makes little sense.

Amendment 97A was recommended by the joint scrutiny committee, of which I was a member, to allow the remit of the GLA to be extended. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, many high-risk sectors fall outside the remit of the GLA, such as construction and hospitality—and I would add care and cleaning to that list. These sectors are high risk because they commonly use subcontractors, agencies and migrant labour. The work is seasonal and low paid, and workers often work on site and in isolated conditions. Therefore, these sectors need to be afforded greater attention and the workers need the extra protection given to them by the licensing regime of the GLA.

As I have said, the GLA is widely recognised as being effective and is often cited as an example of best practice. Many people have called for its remit to be extended to such high-risk sectors, which is why the Joint Committee looked at it in some detail and agreed. It would be a mistake not to consider it now or, as the noble and learned Baroness said, in the future, which is why I support Amendments 97 and 101A that allow for that. These amendments also would allow the GLA to be given greater powers. I agree. The GLA would have the power, for example, to enforce payment of unpaid wages and the ability to fine businesses which have deliberately evaded licensing.

The sentencing and penalties faced by unlicensed and exploitative gangmasters also need addressing. Some very ruthless people are getting away with comparatively small fines. In 2013, an unlicensed gangmaster was convicted of exploiting more than 60 Filipino workers on dairy farms in the UK. Despite having made more than £700,000 through exploiting his workers and housing them in appalling conditions, he was given a 12-month suspended sentence and was asked to pay £45,000 in compensation over three years. We must review the sentencing guidelines for GLA offences. We cannot have a situation where cruel gangmasters see fines, in the words of the GLA,

“as a hazard of the job”.

I hope that we can amend this Bill to address these significant issues, as when there is inadequate preventive action, abuse occurs.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 101A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, and I support the other amendments in the group. Like others, we are seeking an enabling power by regulations to allow the Secretary of State to expand the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority into other sectors when he or she wishes to do so. In Committee in the other place, the Minister, Karen Bradley, said:

“The case has not been made for extending the GLA’s remit at this stage beyond the core areas the Act sought to address”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/14; col. 480.]

I contest that point of view because, like other Members across the Committee, we have a deal of evidence to prove that there is a strong case for extending the GLA’s remit. But we are not forcing the Government to do that now; we are saying, as and when appropriate, please let us do it.

The introduction of legislation on gangmasters in 2004 has worked very well in protecting workers in the agriculture, horticulture and shellfish collection sectors. Widespread research from trade unions, charities and academics suggests that hundreds of thousands of migrant workers are routinely underpaid and overworked in dirty and dangerous jobs across the UK on farms, in care homes, providing cleaning services on the London Underground, in hotels and offices, and on construction sites, as others have said. Often employed by labour providers or gangmasters, many of these workers presumably have little idea of UK employment rights such as the national minimum wage, let alone the leverage to be able to claim them.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, partly because I was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is right to say that there should be at least some reference to overseas: we should not be seen as looking at slavery exclusively within the United Kingdom. How far that should go, through high commissions and embassies, is probably a matter for Government to look at, but I think there should be some reference. I shall also speak about Amendments 67ZC and 68ZA, both of which are in my name.

I went to the European Commission anti-slavery trafficking meeting this morning as the first speaker. One of the other speakers, apart from the Minister in the Commons, Karen Bradley, was Kevin Hyland, so I took the opportunity to ask him how he sees his role. He has just sent me a long e-mail, which I shall summarise. He sees himself as exercising a very large degree of freedom. He sees himself as independent. He says that victims are at the forefront of his plans. He is very concerned about wrongful arrest, particularly of children. He is making a survivor of human trafficking one of the panel of the group that he is using. He is recruiting a policy lead externally, by advertisement, with the agreement of the Home Office; so the number 2 will come from outside, with experience of NGOs, experience on the NRM and experience of supporting victims.

The Bishop of Bath is advising Kevin Hyland on the ecumenical response, in relation to all faiths. He has a group of lawyers to look at issues and best practice. He has a group from the NHS working to look at health issues and he has asked business leaders to form another group, all of them being there to advise him. He sees his office as independent. I must say, regardless of what the words are, listening to Kevin Hyland today I was enormously heartened by what he had to say. This does not mean that we should not put the words to the deeds, but we actually have the deeds. I thought that the House would like to know that, and I thought that it was very good news.

I will add a few things to the duties of the commissioner. My Amendment 67ZC deals with the supply chain. It is splendid—the Government are to be congratulated on it; they talk about the necessity for companies to check right down the ladder and to write reports. However, nothing at the moment in that part of the Bill says who should monitor it. My amendment would allow the commissioner to have oversight and a monitoring role. I also suggested, perhaps slightly cheekily, that he should have the power to impose penalties. I am not sure whether the commissioner will have that power, but we have not yet heard from the Government who will impose penalties if companies are not prepared to obey Clause 51.

It is very important that the commissioner should receive copies of the statements required from commercial organisations so that he can check on what is going on. The commissioner seems to be the ideal person to know what commercial organisations are doing on the ground, which their reports will have to state. Of course, if they do not like doing the reports, he could be the person to pick up the phone to say, “Why haven’t you done it?”.

The other point, which is perhaps not of the most immediate importance but which is a crucial part of any commissioner’s job, is the collection of data. It is quite interesting that as far as I can see, so far in this Bill nobody has a duty to collect data. We know that the human trafficking organisation in Birmingham does not consider itself to be the data collection organisation. Now that we have the NRM report from Jeremy Oppenheim, entirely new groups will deal with that, according to the Government, who I believe say that they accept the report on the NRM. However, there will be about eight of those panels, and at the moment there is nothing to show who will collate the data on who the victims are, what is happening to them, where they come from, and so on, and the commissioner is the obvious person to do that. Therefore I would like to see those amendments in the Bill.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. In doing so, I also warmly welcome the other amendments in this group. We certainly subscribe to the evidence-based views of the Joint Committee on the role of the commissioner, as do other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I also find of great interest the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on the international aspect, and I would certainly like to see that explored further.

The commissioner’s role, set out in Clause 41, is narrowly centred on promoting good practice in law enforcement and the identification of victims, which in practice also involves law enforcement agencies to a large degree. That focus on prosecutions and investigations has been emphasised by the appointment of a police officer as the commissioner-designate. Of course I note what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, and warmly welcome that the commissioner-designate is determined to be independent and all the various aspirations that she cited, and that he will take advice from a very wide circle of people. However, it should not be up to the judgment of that one man to decide what his remit is and how he acts. It is extremely important for the future—for future commissioners and Home Secretaries—that the definition that we consider fitting should be in the Bill.

The limited remit of the commissioner reflects the fundamental flaw in the original draft of the Bill, which has been ameliorated to some extent already, although there is further to go: namely, the absence of measures to meet the needs of victims. Our Amendment 67ZAA seeks to widen the remit of what the commissioner must encourage in relation to good practice. The Government have raised concern that there should be no overlap with the work of the Victims’ Commissioner. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, we believe that is not beyond the two commissioners in question—and I am delighted that the noble Baroness is in her place—to set clear protocols to guarantee smooth and constructive working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

In terms of independence, the point was made very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others, that it is not a matter of personalities. The commissioner-designate is clearly a jolly good chap and all that but this is not about him. This is about the role of the commissioner, how the role is seen by other countries, and the ability of the commissioner to interact with other agencies both here and abroad. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to address that point. Might it also be possible for him to organise a meeting with the commissioner-designate for all Peers who might be interested?

[Lord Warner]

When the Minister replies to my noble friend, could he say how what he said about Kevin Hyland’s views squares with Clause 40(4), which makes it very clear—if I understand the English in the Bill—that the Secretary of State is in the driving seat on the staff made available to the commissioner? If I may put this rather unkindly to the Minister, he may be dropping the commissioner who has been appointed somewhat in the cart, in that it may convey to your Lordships’ House that this man actually is a creature of the Home Office rather than the other way round.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, in recent years three children took their own lives after spending a night in a police cell. They were 17 year-olds and, under current legislation, they could be kept in police cells overnight—if they had been 16 that would not have been allowed, but as 17 year-olds, they were. One of them was Kesia Leatherbarrow. Her mother is a teacher. She leads the maths department in her school. Her father is the deputy head of a local school. Those children had parents to advocate for them, parents who were passionate to see that what happened to their children did not happen to other children. Through their advocacy they managed to persuade the Government to change the law so that in future 17 year-olds will not be placed in custody overnight.

I hope I can also express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for their hard work and determination over years to bring about the change that we are seeing today. I also thank the Government for working with them and for their constructive engagement in making this the best possible arrangement for these young people, so that while they may lack parents they have the advocates they need to have the best chances in their lives.

I support these amendments. I particularly add my support to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Patel to extend this to all unaccompanied children. This June, thanks to the kind help of the Children’s Commissioner for England, I and some colleagues had the pleasure of meeting five young men from Afghanistan. They had all arrived here as unaccompanied children. One young man was doing extremely well in his studies and spoke with great gratitude of the help he had received. Another had spent time in a mental hospital. His health had been wrecked as a result of the lack of support he had received. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should take steps to ensure that all separated young people have the best help as early as possible so they can do well and not fall. I hope this will be changed as soon as possible. I recognise that the Government have come a long way, but I hope they will give this very careful consideration.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 103 and 104 and to speak to Amendments 86 and 86H, to which I have put my name.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have been veritable champions of these young vulnerable people and it is thanks to them—I have to say, with our support—that the Government have got far as they have. Of course I welcome Clause 47 and the government amendment that was introduced in the other place—but, as so many have said, we have not quite got there yet, but I have no doubt that we will.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, my colleagues in the Commons, together with some other Members of the House of Commons, consistently argued that unless advocates are given legal powers they will not be able to act effectively in the child’s best interests and truly protect trafficked children. We have a great example before us tonight. It was mentioned by several noble Lords. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who introduced the Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that our Government will ensure that the laws pertaining to trafficked children are the same throughout the United Kingdom. It is very important and I very much hope we will follow their excellent example.

If we are truly to deliver for these most vulnerable of children, we must ensure that advocates have legal authority to act for the child in cases where they lack the legal capacity to do so. We want guardians to be able to instruct solicitors on their behalf and represent the child’s best interests. Advocates must also have the power to compel local authorities to take action where a child is not receiving the services and support to which they are entitled, such as appropriate accommodation. We also want the UK to be brought into line with its obligations under the Council of Europe convention and, as has been said, under the anti-trafficking directive.

Evidence resulting from the work and experience of members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium and from research commissioned by the Home Office and conducted by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council demonstrate that local authorities often fail to understand, prioritise and adequately respond to trafficked children’s needs. This too often results in these vulnerable children falling through the gaps, as has been said, being housed in inappropriate and unsafe accommodation, such as bed and breakfast, and receiving inadequate adult and financial support.

Those most closely involved also find that the only way to force local authorities to act is litigation, or the threat of it. A legal advocate with powers to compel the local authority to act is therefore vital if we are to ensure that these children are correctly assessed and get the services to which they are entitled. Evidence from the evaluation of the Scottish guardianship pilot found that because guardians did not have legal powers and were not on the same statutory footing as local authority staff, they sometimes struggled to ensure that local authorities provided trafficked children with the correct services, and that because the service had no statutory footing the guardians found themselves having to negotiate, and sometimes renegotiate, the position in order to assist the young people with whom they worked. We have that very fine example before us. We know that it did not work in Scotland, so please let us act now to ensure that it works when we introduce these advocates.

Giving advocates legal powers to instruct solicitors would not conflict with the local authority, which remains responsible for the welfare and safeguarding of the child. The Northern Ireland Assembly’s amendment to its Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill 2014 puts child trafficking advocates on an equal footing with the local authority and states that local authorities must recognise and pay due regard to the functions of child trafficking advocates. That is another fine example to be followed. The Northern Ireland Bill even has the wording right.

I urge the Government to support this amendment, or something very similar, in order to ensure that advocates have legal powers and that trafficked children are entitled to the support and protection that they deserve, because they deserve no less.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, on that last point, the remarks on Northern Ireland of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, we are, I am sure, as one. We recognise that we are moving. The general consensus, if I may try to sum up the debate, is that progress has been made and we have come a long way, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but perhaps there is further to go. Well, we still have more stages in the consideration of this legislation.

I come to some general remarks. I join nearly all noble Lords in the debate on these amendments in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord McColl for his determined and—I am tempted to say, as a former member of the Government Whips’ Office—unyielding advocacy on behalf of children, going back to the Immigration Bill, but also his own Private Member’s Bill. It has been an example of how it is possible, from the Back Benches, to make significant, important changes to government legislation.

I urge my noble friend, in saying this, to recognise that we have in front of us something that is not timid or weak. Such terms have been used a few times during our discussion. I totally accept that that is how parliamentary discussion and scrutiny should work: the Government give a bit and then people say, yes, thank you—17 year-olds, legal aid—but can we have some more? I understand that, but there is an audience outside this place who needs to have some confidence that we have before us something that is robust and that they can act upon. Yes, okay, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner may not have everything spelt out to the last letter as far as your Lordships would like, but the fact is that he is there, he has a vital role to play, and others should work with him to ensure that victims are identified and perpetrators prosecuted. With child-trafficking advocates, again, we may not have everything spelt out to the letter in the Bill, but the reality is that we do have a provision there.

We have heard a lot about the “mays” in Clause 47, but there are some “musts” as well. For example:

“The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable persons (“child trafficking advocates”) to be available to represent and support children who there is reason to believe may be victims of human trafficking”.

In the next subsection,

“the Secretary of State must have regard to the principle that, so far as practicable, a child should be represented and supported by someone who is independent of any person who will be responsible for making decisions about the child”.

Also, of course, in Clause 47(6):

“The Secretary of State must, no later than 9 months after the day … report on the steps the Secretary of State proposes to take in relation to the powers conferred by this section”.

So there are “musts” there.

I shall deal with some specific points put before us. The issue of support and protection for victims of child trafficking is of the utmost importance across the Floor of both Houses of Parliament. I share the aim of providing a bespoke support system for this most vulnerable group of children. I am dedicated to ensuring that these children receive the support and protection they deserve after the nightmare of their traumatic experience of being trafficked and exploited.

Before I continue, I assure noble Lords that, although modern slavery is a devolved matter, we continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on the issue. We are fully abreast of the similar provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, in particular, referred to in respect of Northern Ireland, as well as the Scottish guardianship service, and we are learning from these. We continue to maintain our positive partnership with the Welsh Government on this matter. We have listened intently to the debate on the issue of child trafficking advocates. Amendment 86 seeks to extend the provision to child victims of slavery and sets out in detail the minimum responsibilities of child trafficking advocates.

In that context I will set out the Government’s approach to achieving the best result for child victims of trafficking. We are trialling child trafficking advocates. The trials are being delivered by Barnardo’s across 23 local authorities in England and are now well under way, having started in September, with a growing number of children receiving the services of a specialist advocate.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I acknowledge that. A huge part of what we have covered here concerns the lack of awareness on the part of responsible authorities all the way through as regards securing the prosecutions, and victims, particularly overseas domestic workers, being aware of their rights and responsibilities, as we mentioned earlier. Therefore we totally accept that that needs to happen. The Government’s view has been put forward in consultation with their legal advisers and their own lawyers. However, I have said that I will seek clarification of this point and I will write to noble Lords over the remainder of Committee.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this discussion, but the day before yesterday we talked about the strategy, which is undoubtedly a very good thing. That is the user-friendly tool for citizens when it comes to modern slavery, so in due course this should be addressed in such a document, because citizens will use it to see how they are covered by the Modern Slavery Bill.

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Again, that gives me an opportunity to draw the House’s attention to the Modern Slavery Strategy, in particular section 4 on page 51, which relates to the remedies that are available to victims and the Government’s strategy in seeking to strengthen that through the work of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this may be the longest grouping of amendments, but it may be one of the shortest debates. I note that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness opposite also have an amendment in the group. Amendment 39 and the other amendments in my name ask what place an immigration officer has, or should have, in instigating an application for a slavery and trafficking prevention order or a risk order. They are also to ask, if an immigration officer has this power, how it will work in practice. Are we talking about a suspicion at the border? If that is so, would it not be appropriate for the immigration officer to bring in the police, rather than for the immigration officer to start on this line of applying for one of these orders, even though, as the noble Baroness has said, it does not criminalise? Would the immigration officer have some power to detain linked with this?

I was prompted to table these amendments because of my concern not to confuse slavery and trafficking with immigration offences, at least to the extent of not letting it be thought that this is a problem that is being imported into this country—because, as in the title of the report from a year or so ago, it happens here. My questions are really about the operation of the provision and the place of immigration officers throughout these clauses, which is why there is such a long list of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 39A in this group. Part 2 makes arrangements for slavery and trafficking risk orders and prevention orders. At present, Clause 15 makes provision for when a magistrate may make a slavery and trafficking prevention order against a person. A chief officer of police may make an application to the magistrates’ court, alongside an immigration officer or the director-general of the National Crime Agency. However, a chief officer of police may make such an application only in respect of a person who lives in that chief officer’s police area or who the chief officer believes is in that area or is intending to come to it.

We tabled the same amendment in the other place to question whether a chief officer may also be able to make an order with respect to someone who has previously been to their area or has had connections with the area. The current drafting of this clause does not cover that possibility. At present, it would be possible for a chief officer to apply for a trafficking prevention order for someone in their area but not for anyone who had previously been there and who may still have connections with the area through friends, family or business or in other ways.

I will adapt an example given by my right honourable friend David Hanson in the other place. At present, it is possible for the chief constable of Gloucestershire police to apply for a trafficking prevention order for someone who lives in the Forest of Dean, which is my area. She could also do that if she thought that they were in or would come to the area. There might be individuals who were previously involved in trafficking in my area but who are not currently resident in the area or intending to return there, but they might have connections with it through their family or business or in other ways.

I tabled the amendment because paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) do not cover every base, but the amendment could mean that the police would have full powers. To use my area of Gloucestershire again, it is quite possible that an individual could conduct activity that should be covered by a slavery and trafficking prevention order but the chief of police is not able to make an application for an order because the individual does not live in the area, is not in the area and does not intend to come to the area, although they have been to it previously or have connections with it.

In her response, the Minister in the other place said that in such a case the chief officer would be able to ask the National Crime Agency or the police force where the individual resides to take the appropriate steps to make an application for an order. In addition, the new Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner would be able to ensure that police officers could work coherently and co-operatively. While of course that is welcome, it is not certain, and the functions of the commissioner as outlined in Clause 41 do not reflect this.

Furthermore, the Minister was hesitant when asked what would happen if an individual left the area. The chief officer would not be able to take any action and would have to rely on other police forces to act. This could be dangerous, weaken the application of slavery and trafficking prevention orders and allow perpetrators to slip through the net. Personally, I do not see the harm in giving an extra power in this subsection to extend it to individuals who may not be covered in paragraphs (a) and (b).

In the Public Bill Committee in the Commons, the Minister, Karen Bradley, indicated that she was willing to reflect on this. It would be good to know whether the Minister was able to provide us with any reassurance on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. My concern here is to make a greater reality of the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner by giving the postholder control over choice of staff and accommodation and suchlike within an agreed budget.

I believe that subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 40 give the Secretary of State too much detailed control over the commissioner that will in practice jeopardise their independence and will certainly jeopardise the perception of their independence, which is just as important.

I recognise that on Report in the other place the Government tried to respond to criticism by placing “independent” in front of “anti-slavery commissioner” in the Bill. That is certainly an advance, but it does not go far enough and does not meet the criticisms and recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which are summarised in paragraphs 154 and 155 of that report.

As a member of the Joint Committee, let me briefly remind the Committee of a key passage in those paragraphs, which states:

“The draft Bill does not offer sufficient protection for the Commissioner’s independence in the long term. Failure to do will undermine the Commissioner’s credibility and capacity to establish relationships based on trust with NGOs and other stakeholder groups whose role in combating modern slavery is well-recognised”.

That is the central purpose of my amendment: to strengthen trust in the independence of the commissioner, with some specific ways of giving the postholder greater independence.

As the Joint Committee’s report went on to say, the anti-slavery commissioner is being treated less favourably in terms of independence than other comparable commissioners appointed by the Home Secretary: namely, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. A critical part of independence in these posts is the clear right to appoint your own staff, to which I would add the symbolism of not being located in the same building as the government department that appoints you.

Those two issues—independence in selection of staff and premises—are in my amendment. I regard them as critical to conveying to the outside world the independence of the commissioner. That is even more the case if the commissioner’s remit is to be widened beyond the scope of the Home Office—a subject that we shall turn to in the next group of amendments.

My amendment is based on personal experience as a battle-hardened Whitehall warrior; it is not just a theoretical fancy. Let me briefly share with your Lordships my experience as the first chairman of the Youth Justice Board back in 1999, when I had to set it up with a chief executive and a secretary. The board was, in statute, clearly an independent body. However, that did not stop the Home Office encouraging our location within the Home Office, kindly offering us staff and, when we refused that, pushing on with endless reporting and meetings over our independent activities.

Control is in the Home Office DNA—whoever is the Home Secretary and whatever individual Home Secretaries may say. The default setting for the average Home Office civil servant—with due respect to those in the Box—is to protect the Home Secretary, irrespective of whether the Home Secretary needs or even wants protecting. Staff seconded to the commissioner will return to their department, and they will not be welcomed back with open arms if they are deemed to have allowed the commissioner endlessly to flourish attitudes independent of the Home Office on any specific issue. In any case, we put those staff in an impossible position by sending them to a commissioner’s office. They are conflicted: do they look after their future career or do they do what the commissioner wants if he or she wants to strike out independently?

It is this experience that has convinced me to run my own show as Birmingham’s children’s commissioner and politely decline friendly offers of support from DfE officials. I suspect that the newly appointed commissioner will run into trouble at some stage over the staffing issue if we do not give him more freedom to manoeuvre with an amendment similar to mine.

I am very supportive of the other similar amendments in the group. All I would like the Minister to do today is to accept that we have a considerable point and agree to consider with us an amendment which meets the concerns I have expressed. I regard the independent commissioner’s right to appoint their own staff as absolutely crucial to their success. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 65A and 69A in this group, and I of course welcome Amendment 65. I endorse everything that has been said by my battle-hardened friend, who speaks from experience.

We on these Benches are very supportive of the new anti-slavery commissioner, who will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in our fight against modern slavery. Although we acknowledge and are grateful for the good work that numerous central government departments, local government agencies and NGOs do in this area, a main point of contact to co-ordinate and oversee the entirety of the work to tackle modern slavery is invaluable—vital.

The Centre for Social Justice’s report looking into modern slavery in 2013 stated:

“Such diverse activity requires independent oversight and coordination for it to be effective”,

and:

“There is significant need in the UK for the appointment of a single individual to oversee efforts to fight modern slavery in the UK, in light of the disparate national response”.

So we warmly welcome the introduction of this post. As noble Lords will know, Kevin Hyland has already been appointed as the new commissioner. I am sure that this gentleman will do an excellent job and we welcome him to his post. However, I feel that it is a premature appointment; it has been made before this House has even finished its debate on this role and finalised its discussions. It cannot be right that any appointment is made before the job description is finalised. I just do not think that is the correct way to proceed.

At present, we do not feel that the clause as drafted would ensure that the independence of the anti-slavery commissioner is embedded. We thank the Government for introducing “Independent” into the title of the role but the insertion of the word is simply not enough. By merely calling the role independent without providing the structure to make that independence possible, the Government are almost setting the commissioner up to fail by making it virtually impossible for him to meet the expectations created by the title “Independent Anti- slavery Commissioner”. The funds, staff, accommodation and other facilities will still be determined by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the commissioner.

Amendment 65A, which is similar to that in the name of my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, would change the wording of the clause to ensure that the Secretary of State may only determine how much money to give the commissioner, without having any involvement in the appointment of the staff or other matters. At Second Reading, the Minister stated:

“The commissioner’s role is set out in a similar way to other commissioners”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 239.]

However, I beg to differ. Having looked at the Borders Act 2007, we have used the same language and inserted it into our first amendment to enable this anti-slavery commissioner to have the same independence as others in similar roles. That is the same approach taken by the draft committee, which also adopted this wording in its alternative modern slavery Bill. Alongside this, the independent reviewer of terrorism stressed the need for a truly independent commissioner to the draft Bill committee to put it on an equal footing with himself and similar appointments, such as that of the Children’s Commissioner.

Our second amendment, Amendment 69A, is to ensure that the commissioner has full independence with regard to his activities, timetables, priorities, resources and funding. It has been drafted by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, with the help of respected and experienced barristers and legal experts. Rapporteurs in other European countries, such as the Dutch national rapporteur, all cite their autonomy and independence as being crucial to their role. We absolutely have to ensure that the wording in the Bill reflects the true independence of the commissioner. Although we know that the current Home Secretary visualises a strong and leading role for this commissioner, which is terrific, the same may not be said for any future Home Secretaries or Ministers down the line—and her assurances must be consistent with the language in the Bill. I note what my noble friend said about the Home Office as an institution.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission stressed the importance of the commissioner being able to appoint their own staff and said that the perception of that independence, if not its reality, may be affected by its statutory closeness to the department—in this case, the Home Office. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, told the committee that roles such as the one performed by his specialist adviser were essential, and that it was consequentially essential that he made the decision about the appointment himself. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, John Vine, also pointed out the benefits of the commissioner being able to appoint their own staff in that they should be able to advertise for the roles freely and choose from a good mix of skills and applicants.

In written evidence, the Home Office stated that its intention was to have a small team of civil servants supporting the commissioner. If that situation arose, it is all very well to support but we do not want those people to be appointed by the Home Office. Is the Minister able to shed light on how they would be able to work in an independent manner if they were, at the end of the day, accountable as employees to the Home Office? There would seem to be a friction there.

In the Government’s response to the draft committee, they said:

“It would not be effective or efficient for such a role to be supported by an independent human resources function”.

Surely, appropriate assistance could be provided to the commissioner when choosing his own staff, if it were necessary and requested.

Our concerns were also echoed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which said that,

“the Commissioner looks very much like a creature of the Home Office, with very little interaction with Parliament”.

Notwithstanding the matters in Clause 41, which we will speak about next week, the Joint Committee also pointed to the inability of the commissioner to appoint their own staff. The committee recommended that the Bill be amended to change this, otherwise the commissioner’s operations would be largely controlled by the Home Office, as I have said before.

--- Later in debate ---

I will reflect on the important contributions made. I am sympathetic to the view that it should be clear that the commissioner can appoint a team that he has confidence in and I will reflect on how that can be achieved. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

It will be for my noble friend to decide whether to withdraw, although I am sure that he will at this stage. I should like to make two points. First, none of the amendments suggests that there should be an open-ended budget and that the commissioner should decide on it. The amendment clearly states that before the beginning of each financial year there should be a specified sum. I would not like anyone, within or without this building, to think that we are being profligate because we absolutely are not. Secondly, the noble Lord did not really address the issue of perception, which is so important. That was the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Why should this independent commissioner be different in certain respects from independent commissioners in other countries—for example, the Netherlands, where independence works very well and is respected throughout the world? We want to ensure that our commissioner enjoys the same respect.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Before the Minister answers the noble Baroness, I will add what might be a conciliatory note, standing as I do in a different place from the noble Lord. It seems to me that a compromise is quite possible. I can understand restrictions on budget. I can see the need to find accommodation, which I know the Home Office has—but not in 2 Marsham Street. That would be a start. It seems that the staff—I do not know how many they would be—could be partly from the Home Office. However, the person who matters most, the head of the commissioner’s team, should be somebody from outside. That would give the perception that the noble Baroness just mentioned and which I mentioned earlier.

The Minister ought to look at this very carefully. If he will forgive me for saying so, I do not think that his speech dealt with the problems that I raised, which are very real. I listen. I do not have the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, of trying to run a particular inquiry. On the inquiries I have done, I have always taken the staff I have been given. However, when I was President of the Family Division, I was given staff from the Ministry of Justice—it was not called that in those days. I managed to persuade them that I came first. I am not sure that one can necessarily do that, if I may say so, in the Home Office. It is very important that the senior person or people in the staff of the anti-slavery commissioner should be seen, as the anti-slavery commissioner himself will be seen, as independent of the Home Office.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I meant to mention one more point, which was the one made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about the experience that he had setting up the Supreme Court. We probably got it wrong in that instance; we should have had more foresight. We put up our hands if we get things wrong. Now that we have that lesson before us, we should learn from the experience of the Supreme Court and not say, “Oh, well, we’ll see how it goes”. That is a great lesson and we should learn from it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we will come to the staff’s functions and powers next week, but we should not lose sight of the fact that some of them need to have experience that is far wider than and quite different from that of the Home Office: we are talking about health and the whole of the welfare system, at least. That point has been made in the context of the powers, but let us mark it in the context of staff as well.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for moving his amendment, which I am happy to support, but I wish to discuss some profound changes in relation to the offence of trafficking and will therefore speak to Amendments 23 and 25. Our opposition to Clause 3 standing part of the Bill is of course consequential on those two amendments.

Amendment 23 aims to delete the current definition of human trafficking and insert a new one based on international definitions, while Amendment 25 would create a separate offence of exploitation to ensure that a conviction can still happen without the element of travel. We have a unique opportunity here to strengthen the law, with a view to protecting victims and to securing more prosecutions. The fact there are so few prosecutions shows that the current definitions do not work, although I well understand the view expressed earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that the Bill must be a means of prevention, not just a means to more prosecutions.

I do not understand why the Government have decided, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said earlier, to copy and paste existing offences into this new Bill. If the offences have not worked in the past, I do not believe that they will work after the Bill has been enacted. At Second Reading, various examples were given by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—more have been given today—of perpetrators who should have been prosecuted but who were either not prosecuted or prosecuted for lesser offences. In the discussion on the last group, the Minister said that we must not make it more difficult to secure prosecutions, which of course I agree with, that we need to increase awareness, which is absolutely right, and that we need more training, which I certainly agree with. Given that in debates on other Bills we have talked about the need for training, but it has simply not happened, I wonder whether in due course we should make certain sorts of training mandatory. However, that is for another day. Notwithstanding those facts, even if there were increased awareness and better training, it would not be enough, although I note that the noble Lord will have further discussions with the DPP and CPS between now and Report.

--- Later in debate ---

I am drawing to the end of my remarks. The Director of Public Prosecutions has been clear in Parliament that additional offences, such as this one, would not be helpful to prosecutors and that existing offences are clearer and more workable. I take that advice seriously—as I am sure do all noble Lords. Given this explanation I ask noble Lords not to move their amendments.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I believe that the noble Lord’s amendment will come before mine in the pecking order. I want to make two points. Of course, I hear what he says about the views of the DPP, but a huge number of lawyers and other people involved in the system are looking at these issues, including charities and various organisations. They are all deeply concerned that notwithstanding the fact that we have this plethora of laws at the moment, as was said at Second Reading, the UK Human Trafficking Centre last year identified 2,744 victims of trafficking, including 600 children. Yet, since the introduction of that offence there have been no prosecutions when the victim was a child, and there have been very few prosecutions at all. I agree with the noble Lord that awareness training is terribly important but there must be something wrong with the current offences if they cannot be used to prosecute people who are perpetrating the most evil of crimes. Therefore, I ask him to look at this again.

In relation to the definition of trafficking, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said, but it would be very good if he could respond on Report to the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I still think that there is something missing, and it is not in the Bill that we are absolutely in tune with our European partners. That needs to be on the face of the Bill. I would be content with that in terms of human trafficking but I certainly want to come back to the issue of an offence. We have to do something about getting more prosecutions for these heinous crimes.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I remain concerned about the definition of trafficking, and I am sure that we will come back to that. I want to ask the noble Lord on the narrow point of whether I am right in understanding that he is saying that incitement falls within arranging. He referred to Clause 2(1), which states,

“if the person arranges or facilitates the travel”.

He may not want to answer that now but I ask the question now whether incitement is within that term. The answer may come later.

Modern Slavery Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 8 as well as to Amendment 100 and government Amendments 4, 7 and 101. As we consider the offences under Part 1, I thank all the organisations which have provided us with invaluable briefings and information, both written and oral, on what is perhaps the most important part of this Bill.

As discussed in relation to the previous group of amendments, it is imperative that victims are at the heart of the Bill. It is by giving them support and the knowledge that they can trust the people from whom they seek help that more of these inhumane crimes will be reported—I know that the Minister agrees with that. However, as we heard at Second Reading, far too few of the perpetrators are brought to justice—indeed, the Minister acknowledged the lamentable figures in his helpful letter of 25 November, for which I thank him.

As the newly published Modern Slavery Strategy makes clear, there are many more victims than were envisaged. This makes it even more essential that we get the offences right in order to get more successful prosecutions and ensure that there are no gaps or loopholes. While the Modern Slavery Strategy is of course very welcome and was eagerly awaited, I wonder whether it would have been sensible for the Government to delay its publication slightly until the legislative process had been concluded; for example, it rightly speaks of the work of the new anti-slavery commissioner, but his remit may well be amended during consideration of the Bill by this House. Will the strategy be amended if necessary to take account of any change in the Bill when enacted?

Amendment 8 would make it clear that the consent of a victim is irrelevant when it comes to an offence of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to concerns expressed at Second Reading, in the House of Commons and in the pre-legislative Joint Committee, and for bringing forward his amendment to this clause. When giving evidence to the draft Bill committee, Nick Hunt, director of strategy and policy at the Crown Prosecution Service, recognised that such a change was needed to put Clause 1 on a level footing with Clause 2, which our amendment seeks to do by using the same wording as in Clause 2.

Both our amendment and that of the Government will ensure that individuals who hold people in servitude, slavery or forced labour can be convicted, and that the emphasis and the spotlight in the consideration of the offence should be put on them and not on the victims. In his letter, the Minister states that the amendment,

“will clarify that a lack of consent is not required for the offence to be committed and that the court can consider the particular vulnerabilities of a child”.

This is true, but we believe that it does not obviate the need for a specific child-related offence. Indeed, Amendment 101 is also welcome in that it specifies that people under the age of 18 are children. However, the mere addition of the word “child” through Amendment 4 does not mean that these offences are now adaptable to suit the needs of child victims and to enable prosecutions of those who commit the offences of trafficking and exploitation against children. That is why we believe that there should be separate offences relating to children.

In relation to Amendment 100, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, I agree that there should be a review of various aspects of the Bill—or Act—in due course. I think that one year is much too tight and I would say that “in due course” should be specified. Regarding what the noble Baroness says about the offence of exploitation, as will be clear from the next groupings, we believe that it is imperative that an offence of exploitation is put into the Bill now. If there were to be a review in a year’s time and the review concludes that there should be an offence of exploitation, it may then take a while for it to be introduced through legislation and, throughout all that time, there will be victims of exploitation and the perpetrators of the dreadful deeds need to be brought to justice. Therefore, we strongly urge the Government to ensure that the offence of exploitation is brought forward now. While I understand why the noble Baronesses have put forward Amendment 100, we do not agree with it. We think that it would delay a necessary step, which should be taken right now.